| The study of the "gei" constructions has been one of the most heated topics for discussion in the field of syntax. Compared with English, the "gei" constructions not only have some similar properties, but also have their uniqueness. Undoubtedly, it is of important theoretical significance to study these constructions. In recent decades, quite a number of linguists like Zhu (1980), Gu (1999), Zhou (2000), etc. studied the constructions from different perspectives. Though their researches deepened our understanding of the "gei" constructions, the previous studies are not perfect.Following the principle of the Universal Grammar, an attempt is made to the syntax of the "gei" constructions within the framework of the Minimalist Program in this thesis. The major questions are: (i) what are the syntactic functions of "gei"? (ii) How are the "gei" constructions derived? (iii) How to satisfy the Case Theory during the derivation?This thesis consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 focuses on the relevant constructions in English, namely the double object construction and the dative construction. Chapter 2 reviews the main studies on the Chinese "gei" constructions. Chapter 3 deals with the syntactic structures and properties of the "gei" constructions within the framework of MP.Following the principle of Universal Grammar, I propose mat the "gei" constructions and their corresponding constructions in English are of the similar structures and their differences are due to the parametric variables. So the English double object construction and the dative construction should be analyzed in the first place so as to explain the "gei" constructions.In order to provide a uniform explanation of case assignment in these constructions, by modifying and improving Bowers' (1993), Fujita's (1996), and Radford's (1997) points of view, a new approach is presented, which can explain the VP-internal backward binding in the dative construction at the same time. It is firstly argued that the double object construction is a causative construction with an abstract causative verb and anabstract agentive verb. Based on this idea, it is further argued that all cases in the double object construction should be structurally checked and both the case of direct object and the case of the indirect object are checked in a specifier-AgroP relation. So in the double object construction, there are two abstract verbs, the causative verb, and other is agentive verb which is above the former. And there are also two case checking functional categories: AgroP1 and AgroP1. In dative construction, a case agreement projection AgrpP is projected above the verb to check the case of the prepositional object.The relationship between the double object and the dative construction is discussed, too. The process of language acquisition, syntactic and semantic evidence, and lexical restrictions all prove that there is no any transformational relationship between the two constructions. The two constructions are base-generated respectively.Then, based on the findings in the study of the English double object construction and the dative construction, a unified explanation of the "gei" constructions in modern Chinese is made.With respect to the syntactic functions of "gei", contrary to Li (1990) and Huang (1999), I argue that "gei" in both the post-verbal and the post-DO position should be uniformly considered as a preposition. Then the relations between the four types of "gei" constructions are discussed. It is argued that Si and 84 are of the same construction. Si and 82 are typically the double object construction and the dative construction respectively. They resemble their English counterparts and there is no any transformational relationship between the two constructions. 83 is different from the other three constructions which can not be treated as the double object construction. The prepositional phrase in 83 is the adverb of the verb adjoined to VP. And the other three types of the "gei" constructions are of the similar derivational proces...
|
PDF Full Text Request